Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: MrIntelligentDesign on 30/03/2022 07:52:21
-
There are four major mistakes or errors of Biological Evolution that could NO longer be defended by any fair and honest proponents of Evolution. These are the basis, the exclusivities, the methodologies and limited view of reality.
The worst is that Evolution had messed reality more. Proponents of ToE are thinking and boasting that they have tons and tons of evidences or tens of tens of thousands of proofs, but Evolution has none at all!
See the details!
Advertising removed
AFTER you read the details, let us discuss those four one at a time.
-
When did you last look in a mirror?
Did you look exactly like both of your parents?
If not, you have Evolved from them.
That's all it means. Not a theory, an observation.
-
There are four major mistakes or errors of Biological Evolution that could NO longer be defended by any fair and honest proponents of Evolution. These are the basis, the exclusivities, the methodologies and limited view of reality.
The worst is that Evolution had messed reality more. Proponents of ToE are thinking and boasting that they have tons and tons of evidences or tens of tens of thousands of proofs, but Evolution has none at all!
See the details!
Advertising removed
AFTER you read the details, let us discuss those four one at a time.
For me it lacks a primordial consciousness for life to occur.
It it's a must in order to exist.
Life can occur naturally as much as the universe could create a computer by chance in an accidental wherever.
Still it would require a software, a system.
Consious life "requires" instructions in order to be created.
Even if that consious/instructions are binary, geometrical or mathematical, it doubles.
A cell must recive environmental instructions in order to "have" instructions.
Don't see other way out of this, at least not one which doesn't result into a lifeless shape which has the resemblance of a cell.
-
Evolution is only a general concept.
Concerning the details it depend of the "thing" you are talking about.
Bacteries do not evolve like a shrimps, a flower or a human.
And this concept also apply to companies.
-
Consious life "requires" instructions in order to be created.
I agree but those 'instructions' are the natural laws of the universe. Under the right conditions and with only the natural laws of physics and chemistry life can arise. And evolution of that life can end up resulting people.
-
Consious life "requires" instructions in order to be created.
Not true. The "instructions" are needed for cells to replicate, and once formed (by the laws of physics and chemistry) they can evolve into all sorts of interesting things and a few very dull ones that believe in magic.
-
Life can occur naturally as much as the universe could create a computer by chance in an accidental wherever.
If there could only be 1 computer, the chance to get THE computer is very small, i agree.
But, there can be MANY computer, so the chance is much higher.
Furthermore, you can think that (one of) the first form of life (leading to the many other form of life and here we can observe convergent evolution : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution) is not due to random but is the normal evolution of the matter : Perhaps life do not appear by chance, but is the logical succession of the matter.
-
Something else that should be taken in account :
I often hear about this "instruction" thing, like if the DNA would store instructions.
It is not.
A single "instruction" (so a triplet of nucleotids and it is why we talk about "code" and instruction) only code for one of the aminoacids (there can be 20, 21, or less of more depending of the era, we dont know how many and how the firts aminoacids were coded).
But an amicoacid can be coded by more than 1 nucleotid triplet.
1 aminoacid do nothing !
It is not an instruction like in computer.
It is only one part of the more longer molecule called "protein" .
A protein can have some chemical activity, so the "instruction" if you want to tell it so, is at least the whole protein, so the whole ADN wich code for the protein (because of the degenerated code of the DNA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codon_degeneracy)
There are many possibilities to code for EXACTLY the same protein.
And there are many proteins that can have almost the same effect with or without some of their aminoacid (possibility to have many codes to produce the same function)
-
DNA is like the hard drive of a computer. It has all the data needed to make any given life form. The DNA is an extremely stable molecular data base. But like a hard drive, it is a passive device, that needs to be acted upon, to give up its data. Without action the data stays tucked away for long term storage stability.
The cell body, which is composed of all types of proteins, controls the DNA hard drive. These protein come from the DNA hard drive. Protein has muscle, while DNA only has data. This distinction prioritizes action; grid, and reaction; hard drive.
Red blood cells for example, lose their DNA at maturity. They continue to function for weeks, by running off the protein data in the cell body. They have no need for any further data from the DNA.
When cells replicate to form two daughter cells, the protein grid; cell body materials of the mother cell, is duplicated along with her DNA. The duplication of the DNA, requires that the DNA be taken off line and packed away into chromosomes. While the DNA hard drive is off line, the protein grid continues to function and drives the rest of the cell cycle dynamics. After the two daughter cells separate, the DNA is unpacked by the protein grids, sending in the enzymes to fire up the hard drive.
One of the main conceptual problems with evolution is that, is in its current form, it gives too much credit to the DNA, for being like a brain, and not enough credit to the interactive protein grid that interfaces the DNA to the environment. The result is the over dependence on casino math to supply fudge factors for the DNA brain.
The protein gird approach offers a simple way to explain multicellular differentiation. All the cells in your body have the same DNA, but each cell type has only specific functions. The protein grid of each cell will set a protein capacitance, that uses the hard drive in its own unique way. This also allows for extended cellular differentiation control via the extended protein grids, from the brain and nervous tissue branches.
As an analogy, say have a large hard drive full of data, with many computer terminals that can access this data via a network. Each terminal has it own experiments to do; unique protein gird, with each accessing just the data it needs. Stem cells bodies; stem cell protein grids, have a more flexible grid pattern, that allows for adding new data and shutting off old data.
-
The result is the over dependence on casino math to supply fudge factors for the DNA brain.
Nonsense.
it gives too much credit to the DNA, for being like a brain, and not enough credit to the interactive protein grid that interfaces the DNA
All that protein was produced because it was encoded for in the DNA.
That's why the DNA is typically given priority.
-
Watch, not necessarily this space but certainly the relevant scientific literature on the subject of embryonic cell differentiation. I had an interesting discussion yesterday with a researcher in this area, from which I gather that Alan Turing's hypothesis that differentiation can be explained by geometry and diffusion equations seems to be true.
-
Evolution as such is not a false concept. Darwinism is bullshit. The theory of evolution says that “the adapted will survive”, and this is the conclusion of Alfred Russel Wallace, which she stole along with Darwin’s biography. Darwin never traveled, the birds of paradise found Wallace and sold them (and Darwin bragged about it), and it was Wallace who fell on “surviving the adapted” in malaria fever, not Darwin “when watching turtles on the Galapagos Islands. ”
It’s all bullshit and they feed the kids in high school, but it doesn’t matter. Darwinism cannot be right because it assumes that in each generation a tiny change in DNA either causes the young to die or keeps this “new and better” code in its offspring. Well, in the 1980s, a very important conference was held in Chicago, where it was proved that this was nonsense. Using different animals, it was shown that the smallest changes in DNA are practically always lethal to organisms and that it cannot be a mechanism for improving DNA.
Some time ago, there was a man like Count Lehndorff who crossed racehorses and noticed that the best genetic results are achieved by alternating inbred and outbred – inbred-outbred-inbred. It turns out that even Inbred or its hardcore version, incest, are advantageous under certain conditions. In Darwinism, it was said that animals pass seamlessly from one species to another, but we don’t watch that -- we see, on a time scale of 10 million years, that a species lives and dies, and new species come along as they exist. These are probably hybrids created by incest-hybridisation-incest.
If only a few specimens of an extinct species are left, they first indulge in incest and then search for a similar species, of the same genus, which preferably also has incestuous representatives. Then such incestuous individuals cross, and a hybrid is created that crosses incestuously for several generations to come – and that guarantees not only improved genes, more strength and performance, but also a much greater fertility – the new hybrids are much more invasive than their predecessors. This process is probably widespread and not new, but it is usually very rare, considering that a new species experiencing a period of growth, flowering and decline usually takes 10 million years.
If only a few specimens of an extinct species are left, they first indulge in incest and then search for a similar species, of the same genus, which preferably also has incestuous representatives. Every time animals have genes that are better than their original species, and Darwinism itself is an unimportant element.
Another theory that probably supports the theory of evolution is the supermutant theory – only occasionally – very rarely that a young animal is born into a population that has some kind of Down syndrome, but that genetic syndrome is so advantageous that it offers better survival – and an individual who fixes the genes in his population. Thus, most likely, the first man – the first woman – was born. Because chimpanzees are not selective in choosing their mate, and human women are. That would explain why the men are less strong than the great primate apes and why we look better than them.
We also develop faster, because in order to have children with a human woman, we have to impress her with something. The couples cross, and a hybrid is created, which also crosses incestuously over several generations – and that guarantees not only improved genes, more vitality and performance, but also a much greater fertility – the new hybrids are very invasive. More than their predecessors. This process is probably widespread and not new, but it is usually very rare, considering that a new species experiencing a period of growth, flowering and decline usually takes 10 million years.
Later, humans experienced a cognitive revolution caused by a virus – a virus that is still part of our DNA and improves thinking (viruses account for about 80% of DNA and therefore part of the theory of evolution).
We had a fantasy. There’s an experiment, a chimpanzee in the jungle sees a woman with a colorful backpack. A chimp wants to steal the woman’s backpack, so he entertains her with a game of chopsticks. At some point, they enjoy themselves so much that they are distracted – both that a chimpanzee steals a woman’s backpack at the height of their amusement and escapes with it to a tree. This proves that chimpanzees have imagination, can think abstractly and plan. But they don’t have human achievements that are responsible for the cognitive revolution, or they don’t have FANTASY.
Imagination as a reaction of imagination to a person’s emotional states. The “wild monkey” who walks around Buddhists on their heads and distracts them during meditation (this really has nothing to do with monkeys and is just a human quality that monkeys don’t have). Chimpanzees without imagination can solve some problems much better – there is a game in which chimpanzees are better because the imagination interferes, i. e. numbers from 1 to 20 appear briefly on the screen, and the chimpanzee has to touch the spot after those numbers on the screen when those numbers disappear on the screen. In order to support this thesis, research should be carried out on human groups in which different professions require different levels of creativity.
Chimpanzees also have something that only humans have. Only chimpanzees have a so-called “war mechanism”, just like humans, and only they wage wars like humans. So when the first humans lived in certain groups and indulged inbred or incest there, the war mechanism caused the wars to improve the genes – inbred (incest) -outbred (hybridisation) -inbred (incest) -inbred (incest) and to make the exodus to different parts of the world more and more perfect forms of man. When successive human forms settled in successive territories and attained cultural achievements, their conquest made sense to mankind, for the “soldian rape” gave rise to new and more perfect human forms, which inherited the heritage of their ancestors and were more capable of further perfection.
Globalisation, however, came about when information took precedence over transport. In the past, transport was more important than information – to communicate informally to two continents, a letter had to be sent by sea – but when one day the first transatlantic telegraph line was put into operation, it was first communicated informally and then transported according to such an agreement – from that moment on, the day that this telegraph was opened, we date the global (Applause From then on, we can talk about the age of globalisation, but also about man’s preparation to leave the globe.
-
. Darwin never traveled,
Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Survey_voyage_on_HMS_Beagle
-
Chimpanzees also have something that only humans have.
Pardon?
-
Darwinism cannot be right because it assumes that in each generation a tiny change in DNA either causes the young to die or keeps this “new and better” code in its offspring.
No, it doesn't.
-
Well, in the 1980s, a very important conference was held in Chicago, where it was proved that this was nonsense.
This is inaccurate, but a source for this 'proof' would be interesting to see. Got one?
In Darwinism, it was said that animals pass seamlessly from one species to another
Darwinism is not a real thing, that is a made up term from anti-science religious people. What do you mean by 'pass seamlessly from one species to another'.
Then such incestuous individuals cross, and a hybrid is created that crosses incestuously for several generations to come
Incest cannot make a hybrid.
If only a few specimens of an extinct species are left, they first indulge in incest and then search for a similar species, of the same genus, which preferably also has incestuous representatives. Every time animals have genes that are better than their original species,
No, there is no evidence that something like that occurs.
Because chimpanzees are not selective in choosing their mate, and human women are
False, on multiple levels.
That would explain why the men are less strong than the great primate apes and why we look better than them.
We aren't as strong as the other apes because our muscles evolved to allow use to use our fine motor skills. In other words we gave up strength for digital dexterity. A chimpanzee may be able to rip our arms off, but it would be impossible for him to thread a needle.
Gorilla's think other gorillas look better than humans, by the way.
I see no need to read further your post is full of many misconceptions I suggest you read up on what evolution is actually about.
-
In Darwinism, it was said that animals pass seamlessly from one species to another,
Not true. Successive generations evolve. The concept of "species" is not scientifically defined and is applied retrospectively to groups of animals that we consider "sufficiently distinct". Humans like arbitrary boundaries like speed limits, national boundaries, drinking age, etc but it would be foolish to pretend that they are anything more than a matter of convenience.
-
Sorry for my English, the translator got worse recently.
If we speak about Darwin travelling, the story is full of lies and I do not discuss this with anyone WHO hasn't at least watched "wallace in Borneo" and "wallace in spice islands".
The problem with "there is no proof for IT" - look again. The title of this forum is "new ideas", so go find yourself those proofs.. the rest - I'm not answering this, 'cause I'm right, you're not!
-
YOu having problem with what I say? Nothing new. Right here on this forum I predicted Omikron as a coronavirus with a lot less intense symptoms and and making a lot more people ill - something like a better, 'cause natural vaxinne. YOu laught but few months later my predictions came true.
-
I do not discuss this with anyone WHO hasn't at least watched "wallace in Borneo" and "wallace in spice islands".
Goodbye then.
-
Right here on this forum I predicted Omikron as a coronavirus with a lot less intense symptoms and and making a lot more people ill
You do realise that a more readily transmitted, but less lethal version of the virus is exactly what Darwinian evolution predicts, don't you?
We got lucky with omicron.
There was no guarantee that we wouldn't get a more lethal version- and there still isn't any such guarantee.
-
The problem with "there is no proof for IT" - look again. The title of this forum is "new ideas", so go find yourself those proofs..
If you can't be bothered to support your position why in the world do you think I would?
Based on your answer I will assume your claim is untrue and just some thing you made up.
the rest - I'm not answering this, 'cause I'm right, you're not!
Acting like a 10 year old is not conducive to a scientific discussion.
-
If only a few specimens of an extinct species are left,
...then it isn't extinct.
-
The result is the over dependence on casino math to supply fudge factors for the DNA brain.
Nonsense.
it gives too much credit to the DNA, for being like a brain, and not enough credit to the interactive protein grid that interfaces the DNA
All that protein was produced because it was encoded for in the DNA.
That's why the DNA is typically given priority.
The hard drive of a computer has all the data including the code for the operating system. However, once the operating system is functional, it now runs the show, with the hard drive more passive, with extra data that might be needed.
This priority makes a difference. Protein, such as enzymes, can do work and catalyze reactions such as getting data from the DNA. This why the mother cell undergoes a lot of synthesis first to gather enough protein for two protein based operating systems. She then finishes by duplicating and packing the DNA, since the daughter cells will first need logic and muscle and then access to more data to build from there.
In multicellular differentiation, all cells have the same DNA, yet the expression is unique for each cell type. This is easier to control at the level of the operating system; protein grid, since the operating system come in contact with the environment, and can it use the DNA hard drive to add to the protein muscle, to deal with any scenario, while also maintaining the needs of cellular differentiation control; base layer of logic.
The random changes on the DNA is different if we compare the DNA is the brain scenario, to the protein grid is the brain. In the latter, the operating system would also be making changes to the DNA that reflect the long term activity that has built up a capacitance over time; read and write instead of just read only.
-
The hard drive of a computer has all the data including the code for the operating system. However, once the operating system is functional, it now runs the show, with the hard drive more passive
No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory
-
The hard drive of a computer has all the data including the code for the operating system. However, once the operating system is functional, it now runs the show, with the hard drive more passive
No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory
The DNA cannot do anything without enzymes; protein. The DNA is packed into chromosomes via packing protein and is unpacked via unpacking protein; enzymes. This basic mechanics is how the DNA hard drive is organized by the protein grid for read, write and long term data storage.
When cells interact with the environment, the protein grid is the interactive switching mechanism that mediate needs, to the DNA. Signals, from the environment do not go directly to the DNA. The protein grid can even make protein that are not coded on the DNA. It is one step above.
If you look at the DNA, its code is based on base pairing via hydrogen bonding. There are four bases, the various combinations of which can be used as templates for RNA, which are then used as templates for protein.
The functionality of the DNA is limited to acting as a template. This hard drive is organized with configurational capacitance; junk genes, that helps the organize the data for more efficient read and write. There is far more variety to the protein in terms of form and function. This is needed for the operating system.
The one thing all proteins have in common, is once they are synthesized on mRNA templates, that were coded from the DNA hard drive, they need to pack and organize in space, based on the potential in the water; energy landscape.
Water is also important to the functionality on the DNA hard drive. It assists the protein for recognition; fingerprinting, as well as for free energy. In your link about virtual memory, water would be the equivalent to the virtual memory, since it is the reflected and interacting part of the DNA, the protein grid, and the external environment.
Evolution has the problem of doing this backwards since the two top layers of virtual memory; water, and operating system ; protein grid, is what controls the DNA, even for forward seeking change.
When the DNA hard drive is duplicated, proof reader enzymes go up and down the DNA making sure there are no typo's. If you ever download an update the operating system of your device, the download is checked to make sure it is a clean copy. The question is how can mutations on the DNA get by that, for a forward looking affect called evolution?
The answer is DNA is not alone in terms of potential. The full template potential also includes the protein grid and the water. As an analogy the words "way" and "weigh", sound the same, but will give different meanings. Neither is a spelling error, but both create a different instructions, that are the sum of a three pronged approach; forward integration.
-
The hard drive of a computer has all the data including the code for the operating system. However, once the operating system is functional, it now runs the show, with the hard drive more passive
No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory
The DNA cannot do anything without enzymes; protein. The DNA is packed into chromosomes via packing protein and is unpacked via unpacking protein; enzymes. This basic mechanics is how the DNA hard drive is organized by the protein grid for read, write and long term data storage.
When cells interact with the environment, the protein grid is the interactive switching mechanism that mediate needs, to the DNA. Signals, from the environment do not go directly to the DNA. The protein grid can even make protein that are not coded on the DNA. It is one step above.
If you look at the DNA, its code is based on base pairing via hydrogen bonding. There are four bases, the various combinations of which can be used as templates for RNA, which are then used as templates for protein.
The functionality of the DNA is limited to acting as a template. This hard drive is organized with configurational capacitance; junk genes, that helps the organize the data for more efficient read and write. There is far more variety to the protein in terms of form and function. This is needed for the operating system.
The one thing all proteins have in common, is once they are synthesized on mRNA templates, that were coded from the DNA hard drive, they need to pack and organize in space, based on the potential in the water; energy landscape.
Water is also important to the functionality on the DNA hard drive. It assists the protein for recognition; fingerprinting, as well as for free energy. In your link about virtual memory, water would be the equivalent to the virtual memory, since it is the reflected and interacting part of the DNA, the protein grid, and the external environment.
Evolution has the problem of doing this backwards since the two top layers of virtual memory; water, and operating system ; protein grid, is what controls the DNA, even for forward seeking change.
When the DNA hard drive is duplicated, proof reader enzymes go up and down the DNA making sure there are no typo's. If you ever download an update the operating system of your device, the download is checked to make sure it is a clean copy. The question is how can mutations on the DNA get by that, for a forward looking affect called evolution?
The answer is DNA is not alone in terms of potential. The full template potential also includes the protein grid and the water. As an analogy the words "way" and "weigh", sound the same, but will give different meanings. Neither is a spelling error, but both create a different instructions, that are the sum of a three pronged approach; forward integration.
Talk the simple smile
Such platonic eye
How they drown in incomplete capacity
Strangest of them all
When the feeling calls
How we drown in stylistic audacity
Charge the common ground
Round and round and round
We living in gravity
Shake
We shake so hard
How we laugh so loud
When we reach
We believe in eternity
-
The topic is about evolution, which in contemporary science is connected to changes on the DNA and Darwin's theory of natural selection. The current approach places the DNA at the top of the food chain. This is where I depart from science since DNA at the top, does not make sense if you think it through.
The DNA at the top of the hierarchy does not make conceptual sense, since the DNA, alone, can do nothing. All that occurs at the DNA requires support by a range of protein and enzymes. The DNA is more like a hard drive with all the data, but it has no means of it own, to do much else. It is passive and needs to be acted upon by enzymes; protein, before its data can be accessed and used. The DNA is not the CPU. A CPU gets hot due to expended energy.
Errors on the DNA, often deemed as the basis for evolution and natural selection, cannot get there without enzymes, or some other outside activity; carcinogenic chemicals. The cell body or the protein grid; how the protein of cells organize, has control over the data on the DNA, on the Ribosomes, and then to its final placement. This energy intensive approach makes the protein grid the CPU, with even mutations mediated by proteins.
Another key observation is that enzymes, will not work, if they are not packed properly. Experiments were done and it has been found that no solvent, other than water, is able to pack protein properly, so they can function as designed. There is something about the molecule properties of water that make it unique to the needs of life.
Water will form up to four hydrogen bonds, with other water, to form extended but transient 3-D water structuring. When you add materials to this liquid water matrix, such as newly manufactured protein, hot off the ribosome press, all the side groups along the protein, will create different potentials in the 3D hydrogen bonding matrix of water; energy landscape diagram.
The most reduced moieties, will create the most potential and surface tension in the water. These will bead up like little balls of oil in water and start to pack as the core of the enzyme. This continues in energy priority, from highest to lowest potential. The final shape of the protein has been prioritized by water, to minimize its potential in water.
Once the enzyme is properly packed by the water; high to low energy is very repeatable and defined by the water, the protein is moved to its proper place in the protein grid. Water will hydrogen bonds onto the surface, forming cooperative hydrogen bonding.
Cooperative hydrogen bonding is where the water on the surface becomes like a large connected 3-D shell; resonance structure of sorts These 3-D shapes go way beyond what water can do by itself in pure water. This is due to the packed proteins forced to linger in time by the water. These water surfaces contain free energy, that can help enzymatic reactions. The cooperative of water lowers local water entropy; lingering order in time, and sets a free energy potential with the second law. Covalent hydrogen bonding used by cooperative define lower entropy then polar hydrogen bonding.
This water cooperative effect occurs cell wide, including on the DNA. In terms of the entire cell, these water cooperative reflect an integrated water based expression, that includes all things within the cell. This is the top of the food chain, but it only exists because the DNA and protein grid set the stage with materials, that can allow the water to linger in unique states.
If you look at the DNA, the number of coding genes is limited. Most of the DNA is based on noncoding genes. The question that came to my mind was, why use such a large hard drive of DNA material, when all you need is a tiny hard drive, to contain the coding genes?
The reason is the majority of the DNA.; noncoding, is there to help organize the coding genes in space, though configurational potential. Like packing a protein in water, where proteins are packed, based on highest potential first, the noncoding genes are hare and there, so the coding genes can be spread out in 3-D space, based on water potential priories; chromosomes. These water potential priorities extend into the protein grid and beyond, since the water is continuous to the outside. Information flow in water is the fastest method in any cell.
Conceptually, you could model cells by just the cooperative water shells, since the surface shapes of water reflects specific material surfaces. This way you only need work in one variable. The organic-centric approach is too cumbersome; enormous catalog of organic details. These can all be replaced by water surfaces, to do fast paced simulations with water as the one variable CPU.
-
it has been found that no solvent, other than water, is able to pack protein properly
That is what you would expect for water-based life.
If we imagine some other form of life, based on (say) ammonia, I expect that no solvent, other than ammonia, would be able to pack their proteins properly.
The current approach places the DNA at the top of the food chain
In a sense, the cell is DNA's way of reproducing itself. This is the concept behind "The Selfish Gene".
There are various views about which came first: Data storage (DNA or RNA), structure (proteins), process (enzymes) or energy/metabolism.
- To some extent, they are all required for life as we know it
- But the origins are now lost to the sands of time.
- Perhaps we might discover more on Europa....
-
Errors on the DNA, often deemed as the basis for evolution and natural selection, cannot get there without enzymes, or some other outside activity; carcinogenic chemicals.
Most of them are actually triggered by free water radicals. The hydrogen bond is a wonderful thing, and the DNA molecule is interestingly both fragile (prone to alteration) and robust (able to function with significant changes). The fact that life evolved on a radioacitve planet may also partially account for the status quo.
-
Puppypower,
if we just tell you that we already knew that water is weird, will you stop banging on about it?
However, you don't get life without some means to make 2 copies of the same blueprint.
And that's the unique selling point of the nucleic acids.
And that is why people looking at evolution focus on the DNA (and RNA).
Reverse transcription does happen but it's from RNA to DNA.
It doesn't start with protein.
So proteins can't copy themselves.
So they can't evolve.
-
Puppypower,
if we just tell you that we already knew that water is weird, will you stop banging on about it?
However, you don't get life without some means to make 2 copies of the same blueprint.
And that's the unique selling point of the nucleic acids.
And that is why people looking at evolution focus on the DNA (and RNA).
Reverse transcription does happen but it's from RNA to DNA.
It doesn't start with protein.
So proteins can't copy themselves.
So they can't evolve.
If you look at any scientific definition of life, life is not defined by replication alone. All the rest of the attributes of life like metabolism, signally, growth, etc, come from the protein. This is why I like the hard drive analogy for the DNA. The DNA contains all the data needed to define, say a human. But this data is only information. It needs to be translated, transcribed, packed and then positioned, before it can do all the work required to be called the living state.
A computer hard drive may have all the code needed for our music collection. We can make copies of this music to give to our friends. But to become music, you can hear and appreciate, you need hardware to access the data and then scale the code, all the way into the action of speakers used for the HD-sound. Evolution is about changes in the hardware, that express the changes in code on the hard drive. The unicorn is different from the horse by a protein horn. Fossil remains are about calcium from the protein grid.
The protein grid, as the CPU, accounts for differences, from the beginning, even with the same DNA. Adding water to the DNA hard drive and protein grid, to make this a trinity, is more subtle, but water is what drives evolution.
Protein, DNA and RNA only work properly in water. They will not work in any other solvents. This has been tried without success. This is expected, since these categories of molecules all evolved in water. Water set the potential for molecular selection at the nanoscale. All life on earth works in water, because water selected all these chemicals. If an alcohol was in charge, it would have selected differently. DNA would not be chosen as the template by alcohols, since it does not work with alcohols.
When we mix water and oil, they separate since the potential is minimized for both materials.
This molecular selection in water; abiogenesis, follows the same schema as macro-scale evolution. If we look at a desert, the types of life one would expect to see, will all need to accommodate the lacks, needs, and surpluses of the desert. They are tuned to what the desert can offer. DNA, RNA and protein are turned to water and were selected.
In the case of water, the direction of evolution, at the nanoscale, heads in ways that reinforce the potentials offered by a water environment. When protein are packed in the water environment, the final selected protein needs a hydroponic core and hydrophilic surface. This shape s tuned to the nature of water. Water can even form lingering cooperative hydrogen bonding in space. If we try a new protein and its falls short of the water test it not selected but recycled.
Environmental stresses on life, from many sources, alter the balance between water and all its many selected and organized chemicals. Rain, in the desert, for example, adds a wild card that throws things off balance. New things may enter for the water. Dormant plants may now grow from their roots, and the former bugs may become overwhelmed with new birds. The selective process begins again.
The nanoscale target of the water's selective nature appears to be the DNA hard drive, since it is pliable and water can alter potential with simple changes. Improper base pairing adds energy point to reflect the stresses.
-
If you look at any scientific definition of life, life is not defined by replication alone.
Nobody said it was.
However the thread is about evolution an, for that, you need replication.
This is why I like the hard drive analogy for the DNA. The DNA contains all the data needed to define, say a human. But this data is only information. It needs to be translated, transcribed, packed and then positioned, before it can do all the work required to be called the living state.
A computer hard drive may have all the code needed for our music collection. We can make copies of this music to give to our friends. But to become music, you can hear and appreciate, you need hardware to access the data and then scale the code, all the way into the action of speakers used for the HD-sound
Why do you keep repeating that bit?
We know how biology (and computers) work.
You are just wasting time and bandwidth.
but water is what drives evolution.
No, it isn't.
Evolution requires change.
Water does not change.
It It may facilitate it (for life on Earth as we know it).
I'm even prepared to accept that life elsewhere in the universe probably uses water.
But it's still just a cheap solvent with some useful properties.
When we mix water and oil, they separate since the potential is minimized for both materials.
Your repeating this statement just makes me wonder if you forgot that you already said it.
It doesn't actually help the discussion, because everyone already knows it.
DNA, RNA and protein are turned to water and were selected.
That makes no sense.
In the case of water, the direction of evolution, at the nanoscale, heads in ways that reinforce the potentials offered by a water environment.
No, it does not.
Apart from anything else, if that was true, we would still be in the oceans where water is more abundant.
Do you see how your posts seem to me to consist of repeating the obvious, and then interspersing stuff that a bright schoolkid would spot the errors in?
-
Fossil remains are about calcium from the protein grid.
Calcium in protein? Collect your Nobel Prize at the door. Or maybe read some biochemistry.
-
No, it isn't.
Evolution requires change.
Water does not change.
It It may facilitate it (for life on Earth as we know it).
I'm even prepared to accept that life elsewhere in the universe probably uses water.
But it's still just a cheap solvent with some useful properties.
Quote from: puppypower on 10/07/2022 20:52:16
When we mix water and oil, they separate since the potential is minimized for both materials.
Your repeating this statement just makes me wonder if you forgot that you already said it.
It doesn't actually help the discussion, because everyone already knows it.
Water does not change in terms of being H2O. Water is a sturdy bookend that is important to life, since carbon based molecules; like DNA, RNA and protein can and do change, and have nearly infinite variety. The stable water bookend offers a constant steering mechanism, for all life, as new carbon compounds appear for packing and placement.
Life in other solvents, like alcohols, would not start with a stable bookend since alcohols would ultimately be metabolized down to CO2 and H2O. Now we have a stable water bookend and a gas that departs. Ammonia would be metabolized down to NOx and H2O. Now we have a water based bookend that will not change further.
I often repeat the water and oil experiment, since it is simple key to a deeper understanding that is still not getting through. This example shows what happens to a simple class of organics; oil, when placed in water and agitated. The surface tension between the water and oil, add energy and force the water and oil to separate into two phases to lower the surface tension. Surface tension allows water to manhandle organics.
Pure water has both polar and covalent hydrogen bonding character. Oil creates surface tension, which implies a shift more to the covalent side of water. The phase separation is due to pure water preferring to stay more on the polar side at steady state. It will do what it takes, to get back toward the ideal balance such as separate out to lower surface contact.
In the case of a protein, which is a more complex organic molecule; reduced groups, polar groups and hydrogen bonds, the phase separation is also based on the surface tension in water, and the need of water to get back to being more polar and less covalent.
As the complexity of the protein increases, the amount of steps increases before the reaching the final packed protein bubble. It is the same water. It does not change and still it wishes to reach that sweet spot; more polar to covalent bonding ratio. Like army ants, many little things all with the same agenda can move large objects into coordinated compliance.
Different organics; from oil to protein to DNA, will each force the water to behave with different amounts of potential and selectivity, based on the unique circumstance set by the specific organics in question. This is why a water bookend is so useful. Selection by water at the nanoscale, is based on organic molecules and packed surfaces that allow water to minimize its potential. These can peacefully coexist with water. This is true of packing DNA with packing protein, to form low surface area chromosome bubbles. Unpacking reverses this and adds potential for enzymatic affects.
My guess, based on how water packs protein, packed chromosomes are packed based on water priority; best way to reach the magic ratio. This consistency of packing is useful for organizing the DNA data the same from mother to daughters.
If we look at an entire cell, full of its organic variety, that creates various pockets and zones of surface tension in water. We still have one water bookend, with all the water molecules; ants, with the same sweet spot in mind, in terms of their magic polar/covalent hydrogen bonding ratio. However, each has to perform a different range of tasks, based on where it is in the cell. The water helps itself, by organizing the protein grid into gradients, just as it does with a single protein or with chromosome being packed. Shifts in water potential; input food, can send information through the water that can alter the packing by the water down stream. Mutations on the DNA are just another job for the bookend of ants that never stops trying to find its sweet spot.
Life is simpler to model from the water bookend side, since how the water is behaving, near any the organics, reflects the complexity of the organics, but in one stable variable. Evolution, driven by water would be based on selection that allows the sweet spot of the bookend to be reached even under the most complex senarios.
-
Life in other solvents, like alcohols, would not start with a stable bookend since alcohols would ultimately be metabolized down to CO2 and H2O
How?
Where would the required oxygen come from?
Oxygen is only present in meaningful quantities on Earth because it is formed by splitting water.
Did you not realise that your idea is wrong?
I often repeat the water and oil experiment, since it is simple key to a deeper understanding that is still not getting through.
It got through to us the first time.
What you are not "explaining" is the other nonsense you talk (see above for an example).
Because it's rubbish, you won't "get it through" to us- because we spot that it's trash.
My guess, based on how water packs protein, packed chromosomes are packed based on water priority; best way to reach the magic ratio.
Your guess is word salad.
-
Water does not change in terms of being H2O.
Oh but it does! In the liquid state it forms umpteen different temporary polymers, the individual molecules are electrically polarised, and there are always a few ions and free radicals floating about. It's a highly reactive substance with some absolutely unique physical properties. It just happens that there is a lot of it about, in all three states, on this planet. It is responsible for pretty much everything that happens in the biosphere (indeed water is the biosphere) and most of what goes in in the atmosphere.
-
Life in other solvents, like alcohols, would not start with a stable bookend since alcohols would ultimately be metabolized down to CO2 and H2O
How?
Where would the required oxygen come from?
Oxygen is only present in meaningful quantities on Earth because it is formed by splitting water.
Did you not realise that your idea is wrong?
I often repeat the water and oil experiment, since it is simple key to a deeper understanding that is still not getting through.
It got through to us the first time.
What you are not "explaining" is the other nonsense you talk (see above for an example).
Because it's rubbish, you won't "get it through" to us- because we spot that it's trash.
My guess, based on how water packs protein, packed chromosomes are packed based on water priority; best way to reach the magic ratio.
Your guess is word salad.
Most of the proposed solvents, that are assumed to support life on other planets, have a chemical potential higher than water. This topic is about evolution and the assumptions of biology, that do not add up. Water has a selective advantage by being at the bottom of the solvent energy hill. Grinding down other solvents, all the way to water, will be exothermic and increase entropy. We add alcohol to gasoline to extract energy and get CO2 and water. Organic based solvents for life will eventually be used for metabolic energy. Water is the last solvent standing.
The black box and probability approach of biology gets them into trouble, with the solvent assumption more about gambling than about common sense. If we used an organic or polar organic solvent, proteins will not pack the same way. The energy landscape diagrams will be different for each solvent. Ammonia is a good degreaser, which means you will not get the correct hydrophobic core nor the correct surfaces on forming proteins.
Protein were not selected by ammonia, but by water. Only water can fold them into useful things. The has been proven in the lab. What replacement for protein polymers would ammonia select, so life in ammonia can get repeatable enzymatic surfaces, even with its higher energy solvent floor? The DNA has similar problems with ammonia and other organic solvents. What would be the new template material that can function in an alcohol; selected by the alcohol to work properly? There is no answer just a lottery ticket, dreams and magical assumptions.
Water can be broken down to O2, such as during photosynthesis. However, this is endothermic and oxygen is a gas. O2 gas can never take over as the solvent, since it can only concentrate in small amounts in liquid water. It is not easy way to alter water all the way to a replacement, since unlike all the organic solvents, there is no good exothermic energy hill for water. We need to add energy to push water up the hill to make even O2. If we burn or retrieve all the energy within the O2 , we end up with water.
-
Water does not change in terms of being H2O.
Oh but it does! In the liquid state it forms umpteen different temporary polymers, the individual molecules are electrically polarised, and there are always a few ions and free radicals floating about. It's a highly reactive substance with some absolutely unique physical properties. It just happens that there is a lot of it about, in all three states, on this planet. It is responsible for pretty much everything that happens in the biosphere (indeed water is the biosphere) and most of what goes in in the atmosphere.
The hydrogen bonding matrix of liquid water, alters water in many different ways such as the pH affect and 3-D water polymers. In fact, H2O molecules to not exist more than a tiny fraction of a second before the atoms are swapped out. H20 molecules are more enduring in the gas and solid state. But in the liquid state, things are different, allowing hydrogen bonding to constantly break the covalent bonds of water; pH. Liquid water takes the second law to new levels; very complex matrix.
The question then become how can a molecule, like water, that is very stable in fire, be able to do things like break strong water bonds, that should require a lot of energy? It has to do with oxygen of water able to hold two more electrons than it has protons; complete the octet.
Electrostatic and polar potential arguments alone cannot explain the stable charge unbalance of oxygen, that oxygen strives for. The analysis also requires magnetic considerations; electrons in orbital motion, and partial covalent character. The oxygen of water can hold the electrons of water tighter, making hydrogen more free to find other electrons. This can reverse the magnetic impact of oxygen, on another water molecule, so the bonds becomes more polar. The binary switch within the hydrogen bonds of water, via oxygen, allows water molecules to have a potential range at each hydrogen bond.
Organics are often called hydrophobic. However, this is misnomer, since organic are not afraid of water. Water can share via the weaker van Der Waals forces that also bind organic materials. The problem is the water will gain potential, in the presence of organics, through surface tension. The hydrogen of water can shares the electron density of the organics. This causes the oxygen of water, to amplify its magnetic orbital affect; covalent nature. The organics like this, arrangement, but water would prefer lower potential and be more polar, since polar better expresses the 2nd law. Polar is only a function of distance, but not position. Covalent is based on the proper positioning and distances in space for orbital overlap; lower entropy.
Say we have a protein that is hot off the press, all stretched out. It is surrounded by water molecules; army ants. The various amino acids will each has a different impact on the water, based on the side groups along the protein. Gradients will form in the local water, based on polar and covalent hydrogen bonding settings, with the more covalent having higher surface tension, near the reduced moieties on the protein.
The covalent side of the hydrogen bonding switch lowers water entropy, while the polar side is at higher entropy. Entropy can increase if the water can become more polar within the gradient. This can occur if the oxygen of water shares electrons with its own hydrogen. This disconnects the protein, which then starts to pack The entropy of the water can increase, prioritized by the potential lowering along the gradient toward higher entropy polar. This packing lowers the entropy of the protein.
The difference between water and the protein is, water molecules are small army ants, and have more degrees of atomic freedom in liquid water; constantly swapping partners and shapes. The proteins are large with less atomic freedom due to being a covalent polymer than cannot self ionize to any great degree. Water become more polar to resolve the total entropic potential of the system even though protein packing lowers some entropy. The smaller residual entropic potential, within the folded protein; very specific shape instead of random folding, makes the protein subject to entropic change; entropic based aspect of enzymatic potential.
Alcohols and organic solvents add more randomness or entropy to protein folding, resulting on less entropic potential in the final enzymes. But with water lowering surface tension, so water can become more polar with higher entropy, the many polymers of life are forced into order to maximize the entropic potential of the protein. We get a situation expressed by the continuous activities of life; reversible surface expressions reactions, due to water running a high entropy ship; maximizes the second law.
Evolution is about maximizing the entropy of water by minimizing the entropy of protein and organic surfaces. This order gives the organic dynamics of life a renewable entropic potential. Increasingly complex life is driven by the unusually high entropy background potential set by the water. as the pieces of puzzle fill in better and better, water is better off.
-
The hydrogen bonding matrix of liquid water, alters water in many different ways such as the pH affect
Rubbish. The pH of pure water is always 7. Sadly, drivel in the first sentence makes one wonder whether it is worth reading any more.
-
The hydrogen bonding matrix of liquid water, alters water in many different ways such as the pH affect
See quote from Alan
If you continue to provide false information we will withdraw your posting rights
Rubbish. The pH of pure water is always 7. Sadly, drivel in the first sentence makes one wonder whether it is worth reading any more.
-
Rubbish. The pH of pure water is always 7.
No.
It falls from about 7.5 near freezing to about 6 near boiling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ionization_of_water#Equilibrium_constant
It doesn't help to add to puppypower's nonsense.
-
Not a lot of biology occurs in ice or steam.
-
Not a lot of biology occurs in ice or steam.
Very little of it occurs at 25C; probably even less at pH7
But the word "always" is one to be careful about.
-
Very little of it occurs at 25C; probably even less at pH7
Try 37C and pH 7. Just the right ambient to fertilise a mammalian ovum. Okay, it's a small thing, but the beginning of a whole lot of biology.
-
Very little of it occurs at 25C; probably even less at pH7
Try 37C and pH 7. Just the right ambient to fertilise a mammalian ovum. Okay, it's a small thing, but the beginning of a whole lot of biology.
Almost the whole of biology isn't to do with mammals. None of it has to do with pure water.
While estimating the average number of legs on an animal (or its pH) is interesting, it won't detract from the fact that this
The pH of pure water is always 7.
is flat out wrong because of the temperature dependence.
That doesn't make the OP right, it just puts you both in the same category,
Re."estimating the average number of legs on an animal is interesting". To the nearest integer lots of people when asked will think it's roughly 4 because they think of cats + dogs + horses etc.. Some will think there's lots of birds.
The clever ones think about insects.
The very clever ones know it's zero.
There's a lot of nematodes out there.
-
The hydrogen bonding matrix of liquid water, alters water in many different ways such as the pH affect
Rubbish. The pH of pure water is always 7. Sadly, drivel in the first sentence makes one wonder whether it is worth reading any more.
The hydrogen bonding matrix of liquid water, alters water in many different ways such as the pH affect and 3-D water polymers. In fact, H2O molecules to not exist more than a tiny fraction of a second before the atoms are swapped out.
I quoted myself above and I never claimed any value for the pH of water at any conditions. I was characterizing the pH affect of water, in general, as being due to hydrogen bonding. Hydrogen bonding is also responsible for the extended structuring of water, in water. The binary nature of hydrogen bonding; polar and partial covalent, allows the hydrogen bond to act as intermediary; step down or step up, for the covalent bonds of water; O-H, so they can become less covalent and more polar, or reverse.
What we measure as the pH is not the same as the atoms of water exchanging partners, so no water molecules has the same oxygen and hydrogen partners for very long. This can occur with or without ionization, since it only requires the nonbonding orbitals become bonding via a hydrogen bond and the bonding orbitals become nonbonding. Again oxygen is dealing with the octet can accommodate up to four hydrogen.
Quote from: alancalverd on Today at 18:12:37
Rubbish. The pH of pure water is always 7.
No.
It falls from about 7.5 near freezing to about 6 near boiling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ionization_of_water#Equilibrium_constant
It doesn't help to add to puppypower's nonsense.
Water is at maximum density at 4C. When water is close to boiling, the density is lower. Higher density at 4C means a shift to polar hydrogen bonds, while lower density is heading more toward the covalent side.The slight acid near boiling, by being connected to the lower density covalent aspect, means oxygen is holding electron tighter, so H+ can leave; slight acid.
At near freezing or at 4C water is denser and hydrogen bonds are more polar. Now oxygen contributes more electron density to all the hydrogen, to get a slight negative charge or slight alkalinity. This is useful, but not needed where I was going.
Water expands when it freezes, which means the maximum density at 4C becomes very low density at 0C over just a few degrees. There is an abrupt shift in oxygen from polar toward the covalent side, so the crystal matrix of ice can share in extended 3-D easier.
When water gets to the boiling point, the density also goes down. This is why hot water can freeze faster than cold water; Mpember affect. The expanded hot water, when chilled quickly, can continue its covalent nature directly into freezing and expansion, and skip the polar intermediate step that cold water has to take. All water anomalies and properties can be explained with the binary hydrogen bonding switch analysis
The oxygen at the boiling point of water; water vapor, controls the electrons more than in liquid water, since there is no longer be any external hydrogen bonds with other water molecules, so oxygen has to accept extra electron density.
This unique state is useful for forming clouds via a strong polar attraction in an oxygen state that would be more covalent in the liquid state. The binary switch is sort of stuck in a middle option, that give clouds and weather, some extra dynamics. The polar state is more electrostatic, while the covalent state of more magnetic. This middle state of the switch, for water vapor, has both attributes; oxygen is more covalent/magnetic and hydrogen is more polar/electrostatic. It can't become a binary switch, until the liquid state forms so there is external hydrogen bonding.
The Miller Experiments used hot water vapor and other gases thought to be present in the early earth atmosphere. Miller started with the oxygen of water having to hold the octet electrons, stronger, with hydrogen more positive, as seen in the updrafts of thunderclouds. This positive water is not exactly a dipole in this state. Miller was able to form a wide range of amino acids, as well as oils and tars of complex composition from simple gases using the more reactive hydrogen protons of the middle switch.
Lightning and thunder appears when it is raining or water is condensing into liquid, allowing water to change into the binary switch, with the release of energy. This energy can amplify depending on the rate of condensation. Miller picked a sweet spot in terms of a water transition with punch.
-
the pH affect of water,
That is meaningless so
I was characterizing the pH affect of water, in general, as being due to hydrogen bonding.
Is also meaningless.
Puppypower,
if we just tell you that we already knew that water is weird, will you stop banging on about it?
I will take this as saying "no".
At near freezing or at 4C water is denser and hydrogen bonds are more polar. Now oxygen contributes more electron density to all the hydrogen, to get a slight negative charge or slight alkalinity. This is useful, but not needed where I was going.
Water expands when it freezes, which means the maximum density at 4C becomes very low density at 0C over just a few degrees. There is an abrupt shift in oxygen from polar toward the covalent side, so the crystal matrix of ice can share in extended 3-D easier.
When water gets to the boiling point, the density also goes down. This is why hot water can freeze faster than cold water; Mpember affect. The expanded hot water, when chilled quickly, can continue its covalent nature directly into freezing and expansion, and skip the polar intermediate step that cold water has to take.
Why?
Why do you keep restating the obvious (badly)?
-
The hydrogen bonding matrix of liquid water, alters water in many different ways such as the pH affect
Rubbish. The pH of pure water is always 7. Sadly, drivel in the first sentence makes one wonder whether it is worth reading any more.
The hydrogen bonding matrix of liquid water, alters water in many different ways such as the pH affect and 3-D water polymers. In fact, H2O molecules to not exist more than a tiny fraction of a second before the atoms are swapped out.
I quoted myself above and I never claimed any value for the pH of water at any conditions. I was characterizing the pH affect of water, in general, as being due to hydrogen bonding. Hydrogen bonding is also responsible for the extended structuring of water, in water. The binary nature of hydrogen bonding; polar and partial covalent, allows the hydrogen bond to act as intermediary; step down or step up, for the covalent bonds of water; O-H, so they can become less covalent and more polar, or reverse.
What we measure as the pH is not the same as the atoms of water exchanging partners, so no water molecules has the same oxygen and hydrogen partners for very long. This can occur with or without ionization, since it only requires the nonbonding orbitals become bonding via a hydrogen bond and the bonding orbitals become nonbonding. Again oxygen is dealing with the octet can accommodate up to four hydrogen.
Quote from: alancalverd on Today at 18:12:37
Rubbish. The pH of pure water is always 7.
No.
It falls from about 7.5 near freezing to about 6 near boiling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ionization_of_water#Equilibrium_constant
It doesn't help to add to puppypower's nonsense.
Water is at maximum density at 4C. When water is close to boiling, the density is lower. Higher density at 4C means a shift to polar hydrogen bonds, while lower density is heading more toward the covalent side.The slight acid near boiling, by being connected to the lower density covalent aspect, means oxygen is holding electron tighter, so H+ can leave; slight acid.
At near freezing or at 4C water is denser and hydrogen bonds are more polar. Now oxygen contributes more electron density to all the hydrogen, to get a slight negative charge or slight alkalinity. This is useful, but not needed where I was going.
Water expands when it freezes, which means the maximum density at 4C becomes very low density at 0C over just a few degrees. There is an abrupt shift in oxygen from polar toward the covalent side, so the crystal matrix of ice can share in extended 3-D easier.
When water gets to the boiling point, the density also goes down. This is why hot water can freeze faster than cold water; Mpember affect. The expanded hot water, when chilled quickly, can continue its covalent nature directly into freezing and expansion, and skip the polar intermediate step that cold water has to take. All water anomalies and properties can be explained with the binary hydrogen bonding switch analysis
The oxygen at the boiling point of water; water vapor, controls the electrons more than in liquid water, since there is no longer be any external hydrogen bonds with other water molecules, so oxygen has to accept extra electron density.
This unique state is useful for forming clouds via a strong polar attraction in an oxygen state that would be more covalent in the liquid state. The binary switch is sort of stuck in a middle option, that give clouds and weather, some extra dynamics. The polar state is more electrostatic, while the covalent state of more magnetic. This middle state of the switch, for water vapor, has both attributes; oxygen is more covalent/magnetic and hydrogen is more polar/electrostatic. It can't become a binary switch, until the liquid state forms so there is external hydrogen bonding.
The Miller Experiments used hot water vapor and other gases thought to be present in the early earth atmosphere. Miller started with the oxygen of water having to hold the octet electrons, stronger, with hydrogen more positive, as seen in the updrafts of thunderclouds. This positive water is not exactly a dipole in this state. Miller was able to form a wide range of amino acids, as well as oils and tars of complex composition from simple gases using the more reactive hydrogen protons of the middle switch.
Lightning and thunder appears when it is raining or water is condensing into liquid, allowing water to change into the binary switch, with the release of energy. This energy can amplify depending on the rate of condensation. Miller picked a sweet spot in terms of a water transition with punch.
Another long tedious post full of lack fof understanding of chemistry. Why do you do this?